To be more specific, the claim is that relative to seat belt, steering wheel, and lemons, tesla is nowhere near the standards of established players and a fuckton more lemons; so to show that the other players also have large recalls of the same type does show that they are near their standards, as well as amount of lemons being in the middle of the other players, a direct show of it not happening more often.

Which is also, very much not whataboutism.

Well for one, at least a quick Google search is a step above the OC that just made claims with zero data to back it up. And I don't agree that's it anecdote, but that's my opinion.

How about this?. It shows conflict with how survey reports can used to back up claims.

But keep in mind, I'm not trying to write a dissertation to refute the original claims.

So? Is that a sin? Is that supposed to make me feel bad? Does that invalidate the information I have provided that refutes the extreme claims?

>he was saying tesla has them more often

Which is why I showed it doesn't happen to tesla more often, how can I make that analysis without discussing it happening to every other manufacfurer, nor does it amount to a fuck ton more lemons.

You guys are struggling with whataboutism.

>informal personal observation

False. Actual recalls for the other automakers is not anecdote.

You have very strong opinions about discussing facts and how to converse. You sound very triggered, honestly.

Gross, not thag ass hole. Why do you fantasize about Elon banging people

>would only make me sink to your level

What level am I at? And you engaged me. I gave a reasonable explanation of the comments i was refuting.

While you responded with childish insults:

>Are you going for "idiotic Internet argument bingo?"

>must be a new record.

>aLl tHe EsTaBLisHeD pLAyeRs dO iT

And I'm using the OC own words to show its not whataboutism, it's related.

>meaningful (I won't use the word objective because you clearly don't understand it)

You won't say objective, and continue the childish insults, becuase surveys are inherently subjective! But even still, the counter argument is: being ranked in the bottom third does not support claiming "nowhere near the standards of the established.."

>similar failure modes without numbers on frequency

If you want to make it a chore, we could analyze the rates, but a good comparison would also need nuance such as, if it's a manufacturing issue then adjust for how many are made at that manufacturing site, or manufacturing line type

Surveys like these are another story, they are inherently subjective. For ex JD power includes things like infotainment tech. Yet, they still fall within the ranks of the established players in the industry. Same with the number of lemons.

It's an objective fact that established players have these same issues, so it's easy to spot an inaccurate characterization as extreme as 'no where near' and 'fuck ton'. Which looks more like you're a tesla hate boy, as I'm not saying they are better than anyone. If I was ide pull something irrelevant out like they still have a higher profit margin so they aren't having a problem selling these cars with poor surveys and quality issues.

Took me 5 seconds to Google those links objectively showing that all established players suffer from what is being complained about, seat belts, stearing wheels, lemons. That's not whataboutism lol that's directly related.

And you link to a JD ranking based on things like infotainment function, to which they can't rank Tesla because it doesn't meet criteria for the survey.

Are, you, sure, about, that, ?

Looks, like we're, all stuck, in a, time loop

CRT everywhere!

Dang man, first it was the msm and FBI, then all Intel agencies, then the CDC, large Corps, unions, DC judges, all allied nations, republican Secretaries of state, NOW the DC Bar!? No, it's not rump, it's everyone else.

It also may serve to be useful in forcing the apple store to install a bollard at this location with regulations absent

Then I guess FSD is OK becuase it's doesn't matter how the public views terminology